Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hitler was NOT Austrian

He became a German citizen before becoming Führer, and in Mein Kampf he wrote, that his family is originally from Bavaria. So don't write he was Austrian. That is bullshit!

His family way back, had come from Baveria, but he grew up in Austria and served in the Austrian army in WWI though.

Population Estimate

Note that the population estimate used is a post-war revision. The correct pre-war estimate is approximately 80 million.

The massacre of German civilians after the war by the invading armies of Jewish capitalism and Jewish communism was so great, that Jewish book publishers, from the 1960s onwards, retroactively changed the population estimates for Germany to justify a much lower number of deaths during the war.

All one has to do is check a pre-war and a post-war reference, of course, to verify this, but such deceit is so total, and the 20% - 25% of the population who tells pollsters they are aware of it are so shut out of the debate by the 2% - 3% of the population that owns and produces the news media, that even this statement here on Wikipedia will be met, as most are, by censorship, enraged insults, claims of "conspiracy" theory, and general Jewish hair pulling and hysteria.


I haven't read the rest of the article. I'm sure there are similar deliberate errors throughout.

-- Bill White

Link to WWW Virtual Library Contemporary History

I registered the deleted Virtual LIBRARY contemporary history again. The VL Zeitgeschichte is the main source for WW II in Germany: "The Virtual Library Contemporary History is part of the History Network at the European University Institute in Florenz. The contents of the catalogue are concentrated on the history of Germany (1890-1949). The Virtual Library History is the oldest catalog in the Internet, founded in March 1993 by Lynn Nelson at the University of Kansas, USA. Since September 1993 this catalog is part of the WWW Virtual Library. The VL Contemparary History is maintained by Ralf Blank at the Historisches Centrum Hagen, Germany."

Even if the linking a little professionally took place should the VL contemporary history under Web on the left of remain. The publishers can do finally nothing for it if people her here left. If private LV archives are linked, then one can not exclude a non-profit scientific Internet offer.

Third Reich

this article does not say who coined the term Third Reich. was it Hitler? was it an English speaking historian? please give details. Kingturtle 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am almost certain it was the Nazis themselves. The spiritual value of three was part of Nazi mysticism, drawn from the movement's occult influences. One can see this manifested in many areas, such as the Nazi mantra "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer", quite similar to the Christian Trinity. -- 06:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1923 the author Arthur Moeller van den Bruck wrote the influential book Das Dritte Reich in which he fantasised about some Deutscher Sozialismus. He belonged to an obscure and heterogenous movement of elitist-bohème right wing intellectuals called the Conservative Revolution and founded the infamous Juniklub in 1919. He heavily influenced people like Otto Strasser or Ernst Niekisch. Moeller was an early mentor of the Nazi movement, but he dismissed Hitler whom he thought primitive. Goebbels forbade the book in 1939. Teodorico 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The first Reich was that of Friedrich der Grosse. The second Reich was that of Bismark. The Nazis coined the phrase "third Reich" on this basis.--Anthony.bradbury 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the "first Reich" was the the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the second was German Empire 1871–1918 under Wilhelm I and II as Emperors (and indeed Bismarck as Chancellor). Friedrich der Grosse was King of Prussia and actually fought wars against Habsburg, the House of the last "Holy Roman" Emperors.-- 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See:Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 1#Term "Third Reich" for some references over early/first use --Philip Baird Shearer 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the First Reich wasn't Frederick the Great, it was the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. The Second Reich was the German Empire of 1871-1918. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Full size of German state during WW2

This is a map of German state in 1941.Could it be translated: [1] Another map with certain areas incorporated after German agression against Soviet Union: [2] --Molobo 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany annexed territory in stages, reflecting conquests. Some disagree on whether the puppet state of Slovakia was "annexed" by Nazi Germany.

The Third Reich established such entities as the Governorate-General of Poland that had no Polish leadership or even participation distinct from territories in western (by 1939) Poland, including Poznań and Kraków, more formally joined to the Reich. This territory was treated as a colony, and a colony attached to the ruling entity is usually considered part of it. To the Governorate-General, which included Warsaw, were grafted some of the territory that Hitler had allowed the Soviet Union to take over in 1939 (including Białystok, Grodno, and Łwów). The Reich incorporated no other Soviet territory (January 1, 1941 boundaries), but the so-called Reichskommissariat Ostland that included the former Baltic Republics and what had been most of the Belorussian SSR and the Reichskommissariat Ukraine seem to have been little different in levels of independence from the Governorate-General of Poland. Supposedly the Balts were to be assimilated as Germans over time and the other people were to be driven off or exterminated. Territorial adjustments in the west were, aside from the obliteration of Luxemburg (incorporated into the Gau-Moselland), were reversions to pre-WWI borders. Part of Slovenia (that not annexed by Italy or Hungary) was annexed outright.

Puppet states in the Netherlands and Norway, as well as at least the "Flemish" part of Belgium were intended to be annexed into the Reich as constituent components much as Austria and the Sudetenland had been. Even toward the end of the war, the Reich incorporated territories that Italy had seized from Yugoslavia and even parts of Italy proper (including Venice).

Nazi Germany had little regard for permanent borders, recognizing borders as only temporary stages of expansion of the Reich. National Socialism left no limits on the potential expansion of the German Reich. It is conceivable that even parts of the United States of America that had large populations of German origin could have been fully-annexed into the Reich according to nazi theories of the 'right' pf German expansion. However harshly the Third Reich treated a conquered country, it never formally annexed a territory unless it had been German (or Austrian) or was regarded as German. German conquests, long enough to result in mass death for multitudes, were too short to result in the Germanization of most of the occupied or satellized countries. Above all, German victories in WWII almost never ended in a formal armistice; leadership of defeated countries had nothing to gain by signing any capitulation to the Third Reich that would give any formal legitimacy to conquest.

So if you want a map of the formal territory of the Third Reich, it would be an agglomeration of territories seized (with dates) and cross-hatching to show varying levels of subjection to the Reich. --Paul from Michigan 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Are very strange. I never knew Warsaw was part of Greater Germany...I also never knew that Poles and Lebensraum played no role in Nazi thought during WW2 and Nazi's only wanted to reunite German people...Judging from that Poznań or Warsaw were inhabited by Germans... Or that the Nazi's were anticommunists and not racist anti-semites(since that information was deleted) --Molobo 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Here is what Nazi's identified with "anti-communism": We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans

--Molobo 10:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are speaking of the deletions of your recent additions. Anyway, if you read the article, you would find that the abovementioned concerns are all already addressed within, but I have worked your positive contributions into it as well. I question your knowledge on the subject when you dispute the fact that uniting the German people through a single government was something the Nazis endorsed, but I understand your qualms with the map. It attempts to illustrate the administrative borders of Nazi Germany (Reichsgau), and although it depicts parts of undisputably Polish territory also under its jurisdiction, it also largely depicts an extension of the Grossdeutschland idea (incorporation of Austria and other German speaking regions) sans Lebensraum. For the sake of avoiding confusion, I have resorted to a more simplistic description anyway.
I also never knew that Poles and Lebensraum played no role in Nazi thought during WW2 and Nazi's only wanted to reunite German people
This line of thought is not conveyed within the article.
Also, the broad category of Slavs has been restored instead of listing the nationality of persecuted peoples, as some living within the regions fought alongside the Nazis (ie Ukraine), but I think we can all agree that the Slavs were singled out by their racial composition and subject to brutality. --Hohns3 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Map suggestion

May I suggest replacing the current, cartoon-looking map with one, say, made from the blank world map? Also, one that details Germany's zenith of power (eg. 1942-3) after Barbarossa would greatly benefit the article. Please, someone create one, if you are willing. Эйрон Кинни (t) 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I think its awful, just awful that there is nothing on the holocaust, oh, those poor poor innocent jewish victims

Did you see the link to the article called Holocaust? This one is already big as it is. (The Lake Effect 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

  • No one says any bad thing about the "poor poor innocent" Jewish people and also no one claims that the Holocaust is unimportant but the Holocaust article is maybe larger than the Third Reich article. This article is about the order and the ideology of the Nazi Germany. With respect, Deliogul 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll! -- 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust is mentioned and linked, and the article does mention the murder of millions of Jews and other people. However, since concentration camps and the holocaust werr one of the most important features of Nazi Germany, it should probably get a separate section, and the "Social policy" caption should have more about other aspects of Nazi social policy. Zocky | picture popups 05:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Error in map caption text

The caption states it's after annexation of Austria and Che..., but that's wrong, because most of Che... is shown as a seperate country. It's post annexation of the westernmost portion of Che. Jon 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. Thank you for bringing that error to my attention, many thanks. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Further the map doesn't actually show the annexation of portions of Lithuania as the distinctive sliver of Memeland is clearly missing. Plus wasn't the rump Slovakia a protectorate aswell? In any case, I second some earlier comments to PLEASE remove the ridiculous cartoon map and replace it with one that follows the proper template for national maps. Seek100 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia was a protectorate. And I wish I could replace the map but I don't have the appropriate skills necessary, I wish some more graphically-experienced editors could introduce me to that, as I am very curious. Second, Memel if I'm correct, wasn't annexed from Lithuania until the early-1940s, if not 1940 itself, so the map caption, etc., is correct on that tenet. But the map needs to show Nazi Germany at its extent (around 1941) instead of in the preliminary stages of the war. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've adapted the basic Germany map to add some consistency to the main map (plus I really dislike that cartoony one there now) and made 2 versions, one showing Europe on the eve of Barbarossa (with all the other countries redrawn, Fascist Italy, ICS, puppet Serbia and Slovakia, enlarged Hungary, shrunken Romania etc.) The other shows the maximum extent of the territory of Germany, with Galicia annexed to the Generalgouvernement, plus Chernivtsi, Bessarabia and Transnistra annexed to Romania. Which would be more appropriate for the page? And since I've never uploaded an image to Wikipedia before, how exactly do I go about doing so? Seek100 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of the war.

Someone needs to check their history a little deeper, and use sources outside of the ones available to americans, as american textbooks are as close to progaganda as anything handed out by the National Socialists.

The Second World War may have began when poland was invaded, but this article makes it appear one-sided...

Yes, the germans invaded Poland...but what did they find when they had taken over about half of Poland? The Soviets...

The USSR invaded Poland at roughly the same time, with roughly the same intent to take it over, that little tidbit is left out of a majority of history books because here in the USA we like to make Germany look like the absolute source of all things evil...

Just something that may wish to be considered in the next update to this.

I'm a young American and I know that the Soviet Union invaded Poland. It's not very difficult to use the Internet as a very good source in determining that, and there are some fantastic, if not definitive English-language resources available in print and on the 'net. While I don't think it's American "propaganda" as you put it, I haven't looked at this article particularly well and I'm not sure what it says about the invasion of Poland but I'll look into it, if I can. Thanks for your concerns, they are much appreciated. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read a little bit deeper. The opening satement above is ill-educated rubbish. The Germans would never have been able to invade Poland but for the active co-operation of Stalin. The Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact of August 1939 specifically allocated eastern Poland, as well as Estonia and Latvia, to the Russians. The Germans did not 'find the Soviets', you pathetic moron; they entered the eastern part of the country on 17 September, not at 'roughly the same time'. The two sides met at Brest-Litovsk, murderous allies. Now, get back to Harry Potter.

This article is in serious need of repair...

This article is in need of stylistic, content, and organizational changes. For instance:

  • "Nazi Germany signed a treaty (Tripartite Pact) with Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy during World War II and one of the most powerful one of them."

This is really poor writing. The pacts had been made well before the war began, and Germany was plainly the strongest member thereof. Also, the parenthetic clause "(Tripartite Pact)" is irrelevant as there were only the three countries mentioned, and furthermore the phrase used in the time was the "Rome-Berlin Axis," later to be the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis," from which derived the "Allied" term "Axis."

  • Also let us note that as is mentioned previously in the discussion page, the information about the Holocaust (and more broadly the general eugenics and ethnic cleansing policies)is rather scant, particularly for an article on a culture which considered such activity a vital part of creating and maintaining the desired social order.

So who wrote this thing anyhow?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Where the heck's the science section?

It's well known Nazi Germany gave a hefty percentage of its funding toward science, moreso than other nations, i'm appaled there's squat diddly about it in the article.

You are welcome to add a science section if you have enough to write about it. Also, it would be nice if you signed your comments. BigBen212 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany article or Hitler bio?

Hitler is mentioned far too much in this article. I'm taking a number of references out, and there will still be plenty. The article on the UK doesn't mention the Queen over and over. With the removals I am making, there are still many, many Hitler references, but now in the more appropriate places. If Hitler had died in 1942, I don't think history would have changed all that much. This article seems to accept some Nazi principles in its Hitler obsession, the "Fuehrerprinzip" more precisely. Ruy Lopez 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that Hitler's importance to Nazi Germany is comparable to the Queen's importance to the present-day UK? That's ridiculous. And if Hitler had died in 1942, it seems highly unlikely to me that Himmler would have succeeded him. More likely he'd have been purged, which probably means significantly less Jew-murdering. It seems likely that a non-Hitler Germany would have surrendered considerably earlier, as well. john k 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. Look what happened to the Nazi Party (the successors thereof) after Hitler's imprisonment in Landsberg in 1924-it fell into competing fragments, full of mutual hostilities and petty resentments. I do not normally subscribe to the 'Great Man' school of history; but in this case I am prepared to say that the Nazi state was Hitler and Hitler was the Nazi State. When Martin Bormann's young son asked what exactly National Socialism was he replied 'The will of the Fuhrer.' I do not believe that it can be put any simpler than that. The conspirators of 1944 selected the right target. On the question of a possible successor I think that Goering would have been a more likely candidate than the uncharismatic Himmler, and I am convinced that he would have sent out early peace proposals. Rcpaterson 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree on Goering as most likely successor. He was reasonably popular within the party, and not hated by the army in the way that Himmler and some of the other main Nazis were. A Goering-led regime would have been considerably more pluralistic than Hitler's regime was, more comparable to Fascist Italy, or even to Vichy France, with various distinct right wing groups vying for power. But this is all speculation. Basic point is, it's absurd to say that we are talking too much about Hitler in an article about Nazi Germany. john k 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Rcpaterson 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Map Error

The caption suggests that the map should depict "Germany at its fullest extent prior to World War II.". Surely then Austria and Czechoslovakia should also be red as they had been annexed by Germany? 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It does show Germany as controlling Austria and the Czech half of Czechoslovakia... john k 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right; though the map does not appear to show the acqusition of the strip of land around the city of Memel from Lithuania, the last 'bloodless' conquest. With reference to Czechoslovakia only the Sudetenland was annexed, Bohemia and Moravia, the central part of the Czech lands becoming a German 'protectorate' in March 1939. The rest, of course, became the nominally independent state of Slovakia, under the premiership of Jozef Tiso. Rcpaterson 07:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia seems fair to show as more or less part of Germany on a simple map. john k 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Economic Policy

I want the words "capitalism" and "plan economy" in that section. --Merat 23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Nazi Germany's specific policy of using slave labour and looting from jews?? a.r


Here is a news story I saw that should probably be incorporated somewhere, but I'm not sure where. It is a recent development in which historians have discovered that Nazis were able to relay messages past Allied censors in code through advertisements and drawings. AdamBiswanger1 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust scholarship

In recent Holocaust scholarship the figure of six million is seldom used. I realize this is a sensitive issue and a magnet for antisemites, but the range generally is under six million. If someone want to find a specific work and cite the estimate, that would be OK, but there is still a controversy within Holocaust scholarship as to the actual numbers.--Cberlet 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

When the frontlines reached Germany several million rapes took place

I do not se why the sentence above should have to be any more referenced in this article than anything else in it, Red Army atrocities is extensively sourced , but anyway, info on the web directly relating to the sentence in question:

Some other links, possibly not all directly related:

--Stor stark7 Talk 06:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So, Stor stark7, the issue has to do with relevance to the main topic of this enty, and your penchant on numerous pages of adding material that portrays Nazi Germany in a creepy favorable light, while it portrays the United States and the Allies as brutal aggressors. I have reviewed you edits on numerous pages, and they are virtually identical to the material I read in my research on what is called Historical Revisionism, which, while often targetd on denying the Holocaust, also routinely protrays Nazi Germany in a creepy favorable light, while it portrays the United States and the Allies as brutal aggressors. And I guess it just makes me nervous about your POV, and want to be extra careful now that you have arrived on a page about Nazi Germany. So let's see what other editors have to say.--Cberlet 12:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article mentioned by User:Stor stark7, (Red Army atrocities), seems to cover this already. There is evidence that every army during WWI (and for most wars as well) of conquering armies raping the women under their control. There may be more of this in some circumstances than in others. With this being an article on Nazi Germany, I can't see how much discussion regarding Red army actions has direct relevence, especially if there already are subarticles that address the issue directly. We could of course have an article on Nazi Army atrocities, but the problem there would be is there enough server space left within Wikipedia to document every crime.--MONGO 19:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, User:Cberlet, lets look at the available facts shall we?
In your revert you stated:
"Revert: this clearly needs a cite to outside Wikipedia--please discuss"
I see that you accept that the sentence has now been properly cited, since you no longer challenge its accuracy!
Instead you now challenge the relevance of even mentioning in a single sentence the 2,000,000 German girls and women that were raped, often repeatedly, in the dying days of Nazi Germany? Considering the amount of text spent in this article on the “economics” of Nazi Germany, and a whole chapter on what happened after Nazi Germany ended, surely 2,000,000 victims deserve at least one sentence? I’d say it’s a pretty notable fact, but then perhaps my idea of what’s notable differs from yours. Are you trying to deny their fate?
You then proceed to attack the sentence through what I see as a personal attack on me. I believe that what you’re trying to achieve is commonly called guilt by association.
You mention denying the holocaust, cleverly avoiding directly accusing me of holocaust denial but still managing to associate me with the sentence. You know damn well you have no hope of providing any evidence even remotely pointing to such. You also accuse me of portraying Nazi Germany in a “creepy favourable light“. Indeed, I see that I seem to have offended you by adding material such as Nazi German interest in Animal Rights [3]. Sorry to have to point this out to you, but an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide an accurate and balanced view of all the relevant facts. You seem to be under the delusion that mentioning of such notable facts somehow makes the holocaust less real.
As to my edits on the aftermath of WW2, the main majority of which remain untouched by serious editors, I’m really at a loss on how to respond to your ridiculous allegations; “portrays the United States and the Allies as brutal aggressors” indeed. I don’t see you providing any evidence that that is the intent of my edit, nor any evidence that my edits are in anyway in error.
Looking at your user-page I see that you write for Political Research Associates, and that it and your writings for it have been accused of slander and smear tactics. I believe I now understand why.
As an end note, from the Historical Revisionism link you so kindly provided: "Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the legitimate re-examination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating histories with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information. The implication is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate."
I see that I have taught you a bit of history that previously was unbeknownst to you, thus I suppose I should accept your “revisionist” allegations as a sort of unintended praise. --Stor stark7 Talk 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply to User:MONGO,
By clicking Military history of Germany during World War II you can already reach War crimes of the Wehrmacht. Trying to diminish the rapes by claiming that this type of activity went on everywhere rings false in my ears. The sheer scope of the rapes is unprecedented. And I do not understand your arguments for trying to distance the events from Nazi Germany. It was one of the prices paid for Nazism, some women even saw their suffering as a sort of penance for the Nazi crimes, read * Marta Hillers, A Woman in Berlin: Six Weeks in the Conquered City Translated by Anthes Bell, ISBN 0-8050-7540-2 --Stor stark7 Talk 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Much has been written about these types of incidents that have been committed by all armies. I would be inclined to believe that, indeed the rapes that occurred by the Red Army and the Nazis were widespred. Indeed, the Japanese did much bad themselves in China and in other lands. American GI's were proven to have raped women in Vietnam. The point is, this article is about Nazi Germany...and since there is an entire subarticle that has almost exclusively a discussion about Red Army rapes in Nazi Germany, aside from a mention here and a link, why would we expand on something that is not directly about Nazi Germany? The issue you talk about is the Red Army. Lest we dimish the scope of THIS article with factoids that are but a part of the story that is told here.--MONGO 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply to MONGO: Since Cberlet tried to bias you when he drafted[4] you to this discussion by using slander, and smear tactics, but without mentioning what the discussion actually was about, I think we should briefly clarify what’s being discussed here. I added the following simple sentence to the article [5]: "When the frontlines reached Germany several million rapes took place"; It is a very short sentence, and contains a link to the main article for those who wish to read on. Cberlet promptly reverted it[6] stating "Revert: this clearly needs a cite to outside Wikipedia--please discuss". I then obliged and provided Cberlet with ample citations to verify the sentence’s accuracy [7]. Cberlet then changed tactics in his attempts to censor the sentence. He replied both by using slander, and smear tactics to attack me personally using an attempt at guilt by association, and simultaneously also chose to challenge the relevance of the inclusion of the single sentence with its link; "relevance to the main topic of this enty, and your penchant for praising Nazi German".[8] He finished his edit by writing "So let's see what other editors have to say"; whereupon he searched you out and tried to bias you when inviting you to the discussion.[9] So, lets focus on the topic please, and leave aside Cberlets use of smear tactics in order to confuse the subject. Should the sentence: "When the frontlines reached Germany several million rapes took place." be included in this article, or should it not? --Stor stark7 Talk 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hum...I am quite capable of independent thinking and am aware when someone is trying to bias me. My impression is that he was seeking a third voice on the issue and it's not like Cberlet and I agree on everything, but we, I hope do respect each others right to believe the way we do. Firstly, Red Army atrocities converted into rapes took place is what is known as Piping, a sort of Easter egg whereby one must click the link to get to the subarticle that has a different scope to some degree. Secondly, I am concerned that there is a sort of POV push going on here. I definitely like balance in articles and strongly support WP:NPOV...but mostly what I want is to insure that undue weight isn't given to issues of a peripheral nature to the article in question. If we make a mention of Red Army atrocities, then that is what we call it, not pipe it into millions of rapes. Furthermore, we then must, since THIS is an article about Nazi Germany, expand on the section about Nazi atrocities and rapes that they committed.--MONGO 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that Cberlet purposely sought you out from my edit history, and his method of inviting you at your talk page made me deeply suspicious. Besides, your writing above "..and since there is an entire subarticle that has almost exclusively a discussion about Red Army rapes in Nazi Germany, aside from a mention here and a link, why would we expand on something that is not directly about Nazi Germany?" (I added the bold), gave me the impression that you thought I wanted to expand on a sentence already present in the article. Which of course there isn’t due to Cberlets revert. That aside, I’m fine with including War crimes of the Wehrmacht in the military history section if you feel that it is required to balance the inclusion of the unprecedented number of rape victims in Nazi Germany. As to it’s relevance, sure, rape happens everywhere there are soldiers whatever the regime they represent, but the sheer scope of this event was something quite new. And the event is just as connected to Nazi Germany as it is with the Red Army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The perpetrators may have been Red army, but the victims were mainly citizens of Nazi Germany, and were likely raped for just that reason. My text suggestion for inclusion at the end of the World War II section of this article:

The Red Army atrocities article doesn't really have anything to do with this article, so at this point, I can't say that even a link in the see also section is warranted. Maybe adding a see also to Effects of World War II to the article section will suffice, since there is a section in that article that details and links (twice) to Red Army atrocities already.--MONGO 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nazi Germany" is just as much about the common people of Germany in that particular epoch of time as it is about the politicians that ruled them. It is far more relevant mentioning that 2,000,000 human beings were violated in Nazi Germany than it is mentioning some battle that took place or that some Nazi git did this or did that with the economy at some point. Would you expect that an article covering the history of Poland during the years 1939 to 1945 would choose not to mention the holocaust, based on the argument that because it was a Nazi German atrocity it thus had nothing to do with the Poland article for that time period? (And NO! I’m not equating the two!) However, since no-one has offered me any support for my position, possibly out of fear of being branded as a Nazi by Cberlet, I’ll acquiesce to your proposal. See also Effects of World War II it is then.--Stor stark7 Talk 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

what would america's motto be if it had to be in german?

my version would be: viele Völker, ein Land, drei Führer. which translates to: mmany peoples, one country, three leaders. (which are the president, vice president, and congress.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

"...Germany outpaced the United States in...unemployment and employment".

This is a little gem from the "Social Policy" section. Outpacing the U.S in both unemployment and employment! My, my! I would be impressed if I could figure out what this means.Writtenright 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright

Reich = Empire?

When one looks at Nazi treaties, laws, propaganda etc translated from German into English, the word "Reich" is never translated into "Empire" as it is in this article. In English, the formal term "Empire" connotes a monarchy, which Nazi Germany clearly was not. There is no word in English that is analogous to "Reich" which is probably why in the Nazi era English translations just left the word in German.

Adolf Hitler's style of rule is best described as despotic. Tyrannical is excessively POV (remember John Wilkes Booth's words upon shooting Abraham Lincoln), as is any word derived from gangster. There was no meaningful legislative activity aside from a rubberstamp Reichstag and no court empowered to judge the constitutionality of any law or decree. A rigid and brutal police state squelched any known opposition; abve all, Hitler could give any military order that he wished and could even order murders (including the Holocaust) at will.

Nazi Germany clearly rejected the word republic in describing itself, and it promptly outlawed all display of the flag of the German Republic. But it had no hereditary monarch, so it wasn't quite a monarchy in the sense that Great Britain is.

An Empire need not have an emperor, and the colonial reach of a republic can itself be considered an empire. The word imperialistic can be applied to the United States of America, to France, or the former Soviet Union. We have occasionally spoken of an 'imperial' Presidency in the USA, referring not so much for the Presidency to become hereditary as to the tendency of some Presidents to expand their powers beyond what others like.

Nazi Germany was unabashedly imperialistic, and Hitler exercized an imperial executive far beyond the efforts of any President of the United States.

The German word Reich might as well mean nation. For example, neighboring France is known as Frankreich and Austria as Österreich long after both countries have abandoned any trace of monarchy -- much as the literal name of China in Chinese translates as "Middle Kingdom" even if China has had no hereditory ruler since 1912. --Paul from Michigan 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)